On Wednesday the 20th of September, the UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that the Conservative government would be enacting 5-year delays on many national climate policies, pushing them back from 2030 to 2035. These policies, including the ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars, the phasing out of gas and oil boiler installation, and prospective fines to landlords who don’t increase their properties’ energy efficiency, were all said to be postponed by the governing party due to the dual issue of costs to the British public. The Home Secretary Suella Braverman supported Sunak’s announcement stating that the UK’s approach to climate action must not “bankrupt the British people”. Despite these declared pretexts of large consumer costs and low innovation, there are many opportunities to decarbonize within policymaking that are remunerative and foster employment, with no significant impact on lower and middle-income citizens.

 The consequences of these delays evidently surpass the emissions produced during this extended 5-year period. The automotive giant Ford proclaimed that the UK’s delay on bans to ICEVs “undermines the government’s commitment and consistency”. Energy suppliers, automotive manufacturers, and other companies finance R&D for sustainable solutions in accordance with policy timelines, and sudden policy delays can have severe financial implications for these companies. Similarly, the CAT (Climate Action Tracker) notes that the abrupt decision discourages consumers from electrifying their vehicles or taking agency toward sustainable consumption practices. As a consequence, this decreases prospects for the UK to equitably contribute towards preventing a global temperature increase of 1.5oC compared to pre-industrial levels. 

Investment in Renewables

The UK is already a global leader in wind farming, contributing to 26.8% of domestic electricity generation. Yet, greater investment in renewable energy, particularly wind and solar PV, could have manifold benefits to the UK’s economy and social well-being. A recent UKERC report found that policy support for investment in renewables could produce as many as 3 times more jobs than respective support for fossil fuel extraction ventures per million pounds invested. This assessment can at least partially mitigate fear in the cost-effectiveness of renewable technology. 

Beyond this, increasing renewable energy supplies improves national energy security, particularly as it does not rely on a foreign supply of oil and gas. Self-sufficiency inevitably prevents large oil and gas price fluctuations in line with international financial crises and conflicts, as experienced in the UK with the Russo-Ukrainian war. Excluding the margins of energy suppliers, the Russo-Ukraine conflict cost each UK adult an estimated £1000 in the first year of conflict, as the nation is far more dependent on natural gas imports than most European countries. 

Yet beyond this, energy independence has far-reaching political benefits. Although economic liberalization is a global phenomenon, the UK’s history of neoliberal policies, followed by Brexit, has left the nation firmly in the hands of global hegemonic powers like the US and international energy prices. Less reliance on trade for energy security could increase spending power and redeem international perceptions of the UK’s economic resilience, enabling a more autonomous UK to finally follow through on promises of new international trade agreements that exist as the failed legacies of a post-Brexit UK.

Nationalising Energy 

Polling suggests that 66% of Britons believe energy infrastructure should be publicly owned, and yet the system is an effective private monopoly, with national grid shareholders taking home £1.4 billion in dividends in 2021. 1984 saw the privatization of energy as one of the many policies outlined under Thatcher's neoliberal government. The UK’s energy problem exemplifies the long-term failure of private ownership to reduce costs for public services, support low-income earners, or decarbonize in accordance with the Paris Agreement. Privatization had intended for competitive market forces to reduce consumer costs and improve production efficiency. Yet, in April 2022, UK energy prices dramatically rose by 54%, while France’s state-owned Électricité de France (EDF) kept energy bills inflated by only 4% by introducing generous subsidies. Beyond allowing the state to shield consumers from cost hikes on energy, electricity and gas nationalization, paired with more state investment in renewables, the government holds considerable agency in constructing a transition to renewable energy without the relentless burden of market forces.

Aside from the UK, all other top 10 countries leading in renewable energy production have nationalized energy systems, with Norway and Sweden owning 100% of Vattenfall and Statkfraft (some of the EU’s largest renewable energy producers). Research on European utility policies report a causal relationship between state-owned utilities and significantly higher shares of investments in renewable energy, particularly in countries with a history of high-quality energy regulations. If polling suggests that the public wants to nationalize, and Thatcher’s proposed benefits to a deregulated service no longer prevail, do the pros to nationalize not outweigh the cons? 

Carbon Tax and Transparency 

The justification that the technology is not available to fulfil climate policy deadlines for emissions reductions is flawed, particularly when considering that demand-side solutions could be widely employed to ‘get the ball rolling’ as technological innovation advances. As Green Party leader Caroline Lucas comments, the policy delay reasonings are “economically illiterate”, and under-exploited taxation opportunities demonstrate this.

It is no surprise that a governing party which receives lobbying funds and considerable donations from the richest men and entrepreneurs in Britain does not consider implementing a wealth tax. Yet an interim moderate wealth tax on the richest 10% could produce a vast amount of wealth used towards subsidizing energy bills or a new carbon tax for lower-income people in Britain. 

A key issue in taxation policy involves strong public perceptions that tax hikes will devastate low-income earners. Clear public communication campaigns can heal this distrustful relationship and allow for new taxes to be democratically implemented so that their impacts would be negligible on the majority’s wealth, whilst decarbonizing the economy.  For example, a recent LSE publication about carbon taxing describes that public trust can be fostered with transparency, that a carbon tax’s revenues would be used to advance other societal concerns, provide strong “cushioning measures” (subsidies) to reduce costs for low-income citizens and publish accessible annual reports to make the public aware of how the tax fosters wealth redistribution. In Sunak’s speech announcing the recent policy delays, he repeatedly affirms that he doesn’t want to introduce new taxes on consumer behaviour, such as aviation, people’s diets, or carpooling. It seems he attempts to appear as a protector of consumer freedom, yet perhaps new taxes and further regulation are the only way forward to improve both the social welfare of the majority and commit to following through on decarbonizing the UK’s economy.  

conclusion

The Conservative government’s policy delays appear to be caused primarily by an over-reliance on technological innovation, foreign energy imports, and a refusal to seriously consider new forms of taxation and interventionist market regulations. The long-term challenge for the governing party will be to realize bold yet opportune policy pathways, such as the re-nationalization of energy, greater investments in Wind and Solar PV, and carbon taxes, that could exponentially accelerate the UK towards a more equitable net-zero economy.